You are here

Archived: Godfrey Olsen House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 12 October 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Godfrey Olsen House on 12 October 2015. The visit was unannounced. Godfrey Olsen House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a range of physical impairments and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were six people using the service.

The service had recently appointed a new manager who was not yet registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. There was also a team leader in post, as well as 13 other staff members.

People were well cared for and there were enough staff to support them effectively. The staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people and knew how to spot signs of abuse. People said they felt safe and supported by the care staff and provider. Processes were in place to check the staff they employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people and medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People felt involved and listened to. They contributed to what was written their care records and risk assessments. These were kept up to date and were an accurate reflection of the person’s care and support needs. The care plans included the person’s likes and preferences and were reviewed regularly to reflect changes to the person’s needs. People had access to healthcare services and were referred to doctors when needed.

The recruitment process records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff received appropriate training and were supported through the use of one to one supervision and appraisal. All staff received a full induction which included essential training and appropriate checks had been completed prior to them commencing work. The service was supporting all staff to attend further training which would support their role.

People said the manager and staff were caring and felt they could go to them about anything and actions would be taken. Staff spoke to people in a kind, respectful and caring manner. There was an open, trusting relationship between them, which showed that the staff and provider knew the people well. Staff supported people as much as the person wanted them to whilst encouraging them to maintain their independence. Staff were offering people choices and respecting their decisions appropriately. People and their relatives were positive about the service they received. They praised the staff and care provided.

Staff felt they worked well as a team, and the manager provided support and guidance as they needed it. There was an open and transparent culture which was promoted amongst the staff. This allowed them to learn from incidents and changes were made to the service following feedback from people, their relatives and staff.

People and their relatives were able to complain or raise issues on an informal basis with the registered manager and were confident these would be resolved. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There was a process in place to monitor quality and to understand the experiences of the people who used the service. There was regular contact between the provider, manager, people, relatives and the staff.

Inspection carried out on 10 April 2013

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We spoke with two members of staff about how they gained consent from people. They told us they always ask the person first and explain what they are going to do.

We spoke with two people who use the service. They had limited communication skills but were able to indicate that they were happy. One person told us �Everything is alright in my book.� Another person said �I�m happy,� and the staff were �nice people.�

We also spoke with relatives of two people who use the service. Both were happy with the support their relative received. One was complimentary about the staff saying they were �totally committed�� and some �went above and beyond� what was expected.

We saw that rooms looked clean and tidy and equipment was clean and in good working order. We saw that members of staff wore gloves and aprons when providing support for people and when carrying out cleaning duties.

We reviewed the recruitment procedure and saw that all relevant checks had been made before people started work. This meant that people were cared for by suitable qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We spoke with relatives of two people who use the service. They told us that if they had any day to day concerns they would speak to the registered manager, both said they had done this on previous occasions and had been satisfied with the response.

Inspection carried out on 30 April 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit, there were six people living in the home. We spoke with four people and their relatives. People told us that they enjoyed living at Godfrey Olsen House. During our visit, we were accompanied by an expert by experience and their support worker. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of using social care services. The expert by experience spoke with three people currently using the service who were available on the day. People told the expert by experience that they were not aware of what an �advocate� was. We spoke with three relatives who told us that they were �happy� with the service provided by the home.